




















■^■^: 






•^ 



C 



0^ ,» ' -"* o 



,0 *^, *?!^.- *■■ ^o^ 




^-.s^^ 

A.^. 





c 



0' r^lZ" °-, 




%^ 





^ 






v^^ 






^. 








^°'';^. 




'^0^ 







,0 




o « c <J> 



> n N ft --?i -.V „ L ' fi . /- 




J- 




'^° ^^-^^ 



.0 




-^^0^ 



















.0 



^, 




^^-;^. 




'f'. 



.^ 



^0^ 













V 



\^ 



- /^^^ G^ "^^ 




<^> *^.\^^ ,G^ ^^^ '° 



^ 












)0v;^ :iay^^<: .-^q^ -^^^^m^/ ^o-r. 



K^ 



-^ 







^ "V, 



.0^ . 






<" 




> 




o > 








. ^^. ..<^ /^'^^a'o "'^. c'^" .v^)iu:^-. ^ ^-^ 



.v>>>. 



v^^ 







^0 0°"=" o 










• ^^ 











.V 








.f 







^. 




^^ 



^' 












^. ^s'^^^^. -.Bins'; .^^^'"'^^ ° 








^'^<^. 




-f 







-f^^ 



• <-c:^C^.^'' o 



^" ^^^ -% ^^yiW^' J" 



V. 



'V 




,^^ 



"<. °'' .^^^ 



^oV 



■^^ 




-f 



.^' 










^ ^^A"" 
-. "<"% 



.^^ , 










^q 



c 



0' 



K^ 



ft. 











5,0-7-^ :imM?^; .^q. 



> 






^^ 







i.JlAy^ 



ACADEMIC FREEDOM 



OR 



fi 



"In the Spirit of 1 8 2(5'; . 






The "Independence Day" Address delivered Before 

the Student Body of the University of Texas 

on March 2, 1917. 




By 

GEORGE CHARLES BUTTE, M. A, J. U. D., 

t i . . . 

Associate Professor of Law in the University of Texas 
Austin, 1917 



L2>^_g| 



FELLOW STUDENTS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 

Men and nations have made the greatest single strides in 
their progress toward enlightenment and liberty, both civil and 
religious, by timely rebellion against the so-called "duly con- 
stituted authorities." Tyranny has always worn the mask of 
law. "If you will study history, you will find that freedom, 
when it has been destroyed, has always been destroyed by those 
who shelter themselves under the cover of its forms and who 
speak its language with unparalled eloquence and vigor." 

If you will permit me to draw a parallel between the crisis 
that now confronts our Academic Republic and the crisis that 
confronted the infant Republic of Texas this day; eighty-one years 
ago, when the usurper and dictator Santa Anna invaded its 
domain to enforce the government of the bayonet, may we not 
take courage from the example of the fathers of Texas, and 
may we not on this glorious anniversary receive a Pentecostal 
outpouring of the heroic spirit of 1836 ? 

This is no day for platitudes. This is no day for empty glor- 
ification. This is a day for testing. This is a day for intro- 
spection. This is a day for firm and high resolves. The men 
and women of '36 have left us a heritage more precious than 
rubies and that cannot be gotten for gold — the priceless her- 
itage of a lofty ideal! — an ideal for which they sacrificed the 
comforts of ease and the solace of home, for which they battled 
at greatest hazards against the cruellest of despots — an ideal 
which they upheld in unity and in courage because they 
were conscious of their debt to us, their posterity ! Are we true 
to that ideal? Is the spirit of '36 dead? Or is it only sleep- 
ing? Or is it perchance fully alive in our hearts directing our 
energies and shaping our thoughts along the same noble and 
heroic lines pursued by the men who voted the Declaration of 
Independence at Washington and to maintain it fought cannon 
with bowie knives on the gory field of San Jacinto ? 
Let us try ourselves! 

On October 11, 1916, the Regents of the University of Texas, 
by a vote of 7 to 1 adopted the following motion : "I move, as 
to Prof. Gofer, that the charges be dismissed, but that this Board 
notify Mr. Gofer in particular and all members of the faculty be 
cautioned in the future that political activity will be wholly 
discouraged under all circumstances. ' ' 



— 2— 

I am not going to make any incendiary speech about this 
resolution because I wish to appeal not only to your courage 
but also to your reason. It has been generally supposed — on 
what authority I know not — that this resolution is not to be 
taken literally, — that it doesn 't mean what it says ; and further, 
that it was passed under press of both time and circumstance 
and was not, in fact, carefully considered. But, Ladies and 
Gentlemen, I have too high a regard for the intelligence and 
sincerity of the Regents who voted for that resolution to assert 
that they did not intend at the time of voting just what they 
said. It is still upon the records of the Board; and the ed- 
ucational world in this state and nation, without information 
of any mental reservations of the Regents, can draw but one 
conclusion from the emphatic language employed. 

My able colleague and friend, Prof. Cofer, who is specifically 
mentioned in this resolution, explained his conduct to the sat- 
isfaction of the Board and so far as his personal fortunes are 
concerned, the ease is a closed book. I think, however, with 
all due respect to him, for I am fond of him and count him my 
friend, our colleague was not fully conscious, in the crisis that 
was so unjustly forced upon him, of his representative char- 
acter. In so far as he represented me — I speak only for my- 
self — his attitude, in the face of the charges made against him, 
was too apologetic, as if he had done something wrong, which 
was emphatically not the case. He said in the course of his 
defense, as offically published: ''If I ever engaged in political 
activity then the scope of your investigation will include one 
half of the members of the faculty whose activities have been 
so much more pronounced than mine . ' ' Gentlemen, I am glad 
he said that. It made it clearer to the Regents that when they 
were trying our colleague, they were trying every member of the 
University faculty. That they realized this is demonstrated 
by the final action taken which did not content itself with dis- 
posing of the defendant on trial but included, in the same re- 
bukeful warning addressed to him in particular, all the other 
members of this faculty who had not been granted a hearing. 

I have gone carefully into the available history of the lead- 
ing universities of this and other countries and can assure you 
this resolution of our Board of Regents is without precedent in 
the annals of first class universities — except in Russia. I ask 
you to examine with me calmly and fearlessly and without any 



■RC/'i 



-as- 
sort of rancor, what is the true significance of this resolution and 
what, if consistently enforced, its effects upon our academic life 
will be. A happy issue of the present crisis is as vitally important 
to you students as to us faculty men. Carlyle has epigram- 
matically defined a university to be a collection of books. I should 
prefer to say : A university is a society of scholars whose char- 
ter is the truth, whose purpose is to increase the fund of human 
knowledge. All who hold to this ideal are akin— be they in 
the student body or in the faculty ; — and all who are sluggards 
or cowards or self-seekers are strangers and enemies to the 
true university — be they enrolled as students or instructors. In 
the true university the division of the community into students 
and faculty is adopted solely for administrative purposes and 
should in no sense betoken a contrariety of interests. We are 
essentially one community, and whatever happens to the least of 
us vitally concerns all of us. The lively appreciation of this fact 
on the part of our student body has consoled and encouraged the 
faculty in many trying situations. Leaning upon this sympathy 
and mindful of the occasion we celebrate today when the spirit of 
independence is in the air, I venture, without previous con- 
sultation with anybody whomsoever, to address you on the sub- 
ject of Academic Freedom. 

y'Best safety lies in fear" has too long been the rule of con- 
duct of us long-suffering pedagagues! I do not purpose to 
use a single intemperate word and expect to offend nobody 
except perhaps a colleague or two who will be sure to pronounce 
my speech very indiscreet. Gentlemen, I can only plead in ex- 
tenuation that for the past two weeks I have been drinking 
large draughts at the springs of our early history and am prob- 
ably a bit intoxicated vfith the strong spirit of early Texas ideal- 
ism and recklessness. 

What does this resolution say? It says: ''political activity" 
— without qualification, note ! — ' ' will be wholly discouraged un- 
der all circumstances." That's strong language. It has kick 
in it. Not even a pedagogue is so obtuse as to misunderstand 
it! What does it mean by the phrase ''wholly discouraged"? 
To me it means in plain English that any member of this faculty 
who engages in any political activity that is displeasing to the 
duly constituted authorities will be disciplined. I limit the 
cases to such as would incur the displeasure of the Regents be- 
cause I take it there are some few forms of political activity 



that would not be deemed improper by them, as for example, 
paying taxes, serving on the jury, attending the polls to vote, 
and the like. However, the language of their resolution makes 
no exceptions whatever. Taken literally, it would, if obeyed, 
disfranchise and expatriate every member of this faculty! 
Surely no such absurd result was intended. Hence the pol- 
itical activity denounced must in reason be only such as would 
be improper — in the opinion of the Regents. The final arbiters 
in the matter are the Regents. Unfortunately they have given 
us no express direction as to what they deem proper and what 
improper conduct but have contented themselves with a warn- 
ing in such sweeping terms as to create doubt and hesitation in 
the minds of some of us whether or not we may even exercise 
the constitutional rights and discharge of the constitutional du- 
ties of American and Texan citizenship ! In so far as the strict 
enforcement of the Regents' resolution would invade our con- 
stitutional liberties as citizens and freemen, the issue is person- 
al to the faculty. I am quite sure many members of this fa'o 
ulty have a very high regard for the fundamental law of the 
land, and will obey the constitution of Texas under all circum- 
stances. 

But there is another aspect of this warning of the Regents 
that is not merely personal to the faculty but of serious con- 
cern to the whole University community. Is our academic free- 
dom in jeopardy? Does this resolution gag free speech in the 
University of Texas? Does this resolution strike at freedom 
of thought, which is the shield of democracy and the genius of 
all scientific progress ? Are we going to be more timid ' ' in the 
future and under all circumstances" about teaching and act- 
ing upon the inflexible Truth, be it in science, philosophy, law 
or government? In a word, will we henceforth be afraid of 
displeasing the Regents of this university by what we teach? 
That's the issue! That's a question, my colleagues, address- 
ed to our own consciences! We alone can answer it. The 
Regents can't answer it, neither can the Governor, nor the Leg- 
islature, nor any party convention! 

Academic Freedom is largely a subjective ideal — only those 
who have lived it can understand it! You students under- 
stand it and prize it, I am sure. You will bear me out when I 
say that the one supreme condition of all effective teacliing is 
the confidence of the students that all is fair and above board. 



— 5— 

You law students know that in every fiduciary relation sup- 
pressio veri, no less than suggestio falsi, is actionable fraud. 
"What the honest student wishes to hear is not officially pre- 
scribed or permitted views but the thoughts advanced as per- 
sonal convictions by a man who has given thorough and earn- 
est consideration to the great questions of the world and of life. " 
Would you students have any respect for a professor who is an 
intellectual coward? Would you expect any benefit from the 
instruction or example of a man who strangles his conscience 
and teaches only half-truth? Could a man inspire you to 
scientific investigation or rightful conduct who garbles his con- 
victions to hold a job? Such an one is unworthy of your gen- 
erous association! The Regents ought to be the very first to 
expel him from these sacred precincts ! Faithless to science and 
to truth, he secretly poisons the wine of our content with 
avarice and disloyalty! : 

The sting in this resolution of our Regents is this: Former- 
ly the Regents trusted us, now they threaten us. Formerly 
our patriotic love of Texas, our devotion to this University, 
our personal sense of the great responsibility we bear to the 
students coming under our instruction and to the cause of ed- 
ucation in Texas were trusted to fix the proper bounds of our 
official and personal conduct. Today we are no longer the 
keepers of our own consciences! What constitutes "political 
activity" rests in the bosom of the Board of Regents! What 
constitutes improper political activity rests likewise in the 
bosom of the Board of Regents! If Prof. Gofer's lawful acts 
were improper, what man here can know for sure which acts of 
his may in the future incur the displeasure and the penalties 
of the Board of Regents? 

Two months after the outbreak of the war in Europe— you 
will pardon these personal references as I use them only for the 
purpose of illustration— I declared publicly that this nation 
could not trust in its isolation; that the situation would grow 
more dangerous and more desperate as the warring nations ap- 
proached the end of their resources; that anyone of the belli- 
gerent nations by a wanton overt act might deliberately draw 
us into the European maelstrom. I advocated instant pre- 
pardness on land and sea as a national duty. About a year later 
the country awoke to its danger and began to prepare to meet 
it. Today the spectre of war stares us in the face! And the 



nation that has provoked us is treacherously plotting to seduce 
a distracted and war-sick people into attacking us under the 
promise of restoring the "lost province of Texas" to Mexican 
rule! Ye Grods, what colossal ignorance of Texan history and 
Texan manhood! 

G-entlemen, was I guilty of ''political activity" in what 1 
taught in 1914? 

I taught that the occupation of Vera Cruz in April 1914 and 
xhe slaughter of 200 of its defendants by the U. S. forces were 
acts contrary to the law of nations and unjustifiable. I have 
taught that Pershing's protracted stay on Mexican soil was an 
illegal violation of the independence and integrity of Mexico. 
1 have taught that the discriminatory legislation in this country 
aimed at "the Japanese was a violation of the fundamental right 
of Japan to international respect and if persisted in it would 
some day provoke war. It never occurred to me to ascertain if 
niv sincere convictions, based on honest study of these questions 
were popular or coincided with the views of the duly consti- 
tuted authorities or not. I thought only of my Science and the 
immutable principles of Justice! 

But, sirs, that warning of the Regents in its present sweeping 
and general form will, if not modified, undoubtedly produce 
a feeling of constraint in the mind of every conscientious teach- 
er of the University who tries to conform to it. That feeling of 
constraint will superinduce disappointment and bitterness in 
the hearts of the thinking men and women of this faculty. 
Haven't we, in the name of patience, difficulties enough to con- 
tend with? Despite them all, this faculty has tried to retain 
its zeal for learning and its ever youthful hope for the ultimate 
realization of the dream of the fathers that this will some day 
be a university of the first class. "Why chill the ardor of these 
faithful men and women by needlessly threatening to under- 
mine their ideal of the freedom of thought and of teaching ? 

That sweeping warning of our Board of Regents was not call- 
ed for by any legitimate emergency existing at the time. Nor was 
it warranted by any reprehensible conduct of our faculty. We 
were keeping the even tenor of our way when this "caution" 
was unceremoniously addressed to us. Does it not reflect a 
want of confidence in us on the part of the Board of Regents? 
Does it not indicate that the Regents feared that we might not 
have a proper conception of the bounds of our academic free- 



— 7— 

dom and might overstep them if not duly warned in advance 
of their displeasure? "What effect must such publicly pro- 
claimed want of confidence have upon the student body? As 
long as that warning in its present form stands of record, it 
does an injury to every member of our faculty who is conscious 
of the rectitude and correctness of his official conduct. Has 
the academic freedom of this community been so grossly abused 
by your faculty as to justify a warning of this sort? Cer- 
tainly there are limits to academic freedom. In a. universi- 
ty supported by public funds, no professor or student has the 
right to assume an attitude of hostility toward the state "aim- 
ing at its dismemberment and destruction and not its preser- 
vation and improvement." The liberty of the scholar within 
the university to set forth his conclusions, be they what they 
may, in public utterances is based upon the assumption that 
they are conclusions ''gained by a scholar's method and held 
in a scholar's spirit: that is to say, they must be the fruits of 
competent and patient and sincere inquiry, and they should be 
set forth with dignity, courtesy and temperateness of lang- 
uage". You will agree, I am sure, that our faculty has offend- 
ed against none of these restrictions. If we have erred at all, 
it has been rather on the side of too much self-restraint and 
docility and too little independence of thought and utterance. 
A professor ought to be a "contagious center of intellectual 
enthusiasm". Instead of disciplining men because they think 
or bring students to think in ways objectionable to the duly 
constituted authorities, it would be wise to inquire if it would 
not be more profitable to dismiss men because they fail to stim- 
ulate thinking of any kind at all. 

"What a professor declares on this campus to be the truth in 
science, law or government, he has the right to proclaim as the 
truth in the mart and in the forum. He has the same polit- 
ical and inalienable rights as every other citizen of this state. 
The University of Texas is not a jail in which to quarantine 
thinkers! "Why, sirs, one of the most characteristic and 
useful functions of a university in a democratic 
society is "to help make public opinion more self-critical and 
more circumspect, to check the more hasty and unconsidered 
impulses of popular feeling;" to instruct and direct the people 
in all lines of social progress — in a word to serve the state! 
The people have a right to look to this university for light and 



— 8— 

for leading! It is precisely this high function of the univer- 
sity that is most injured by any restriction upon its academic 
freedom. 

If you would develop any organism into power, the first 
and most elementary rule is, in the words of Matthew Arnold, 
"Do nothing to depress the life of the organism" ! The Regents 
of the University of Texas are the champions of the rights of 
faculty and students before the people of this state! As the 
highest administrators of the university, they are the custodians 
of its influence in this state. This university is a public in- 
stitution. Is not its every act a public act, its every activity, 
in the truest, fullest sense, a political activity? The resolu- 
tion of the Regents which demands that the faculty desist from 
political activity demands what it is not only inexpedient but also 
impossible to comply with. When its full import is brought to 
the attention of the Regents by faculty and students, 
as I trust will be done speedily in a proper manner, we may be 
confident the right thinking men on the Board will vote to ex- 
punge this warning from the record and to trust these men and 
women of the faculty with full personal and academic freedom, 
as has been the rule since the founding of this university. 

A word more and I am done. In what I have said today I 
have tried to exemplify the true spirit of academic freedom. 
I may have failed, and I may have done unintentional injustice. 
Others could have spoken better and more wisely. However 
that may be, I have tried sincerely to celebrate this anniversary 
with you, my fellow students, in a proper manner. I have ven- 
tured to warn you of what I feel to be a dangerous approach to 
an attack upon freedom of thought in our beloved institution. 
I have spoken as in the visible presence of those heroes of sacred 
memory, of the statesmanlike Rusk, the wise and loyal Austin 
— of the chivalrous Fannin — of the brave Travis who was the 
burnt-offering without blemish on the altar of our freedom — of 
the great-hearted Sam Houston, the master mind of the Texan 
revolution, the fearless conqueror of the haughty Napoleon of 
the west! And translating their passionate love of constitu- 
tional liberty into the terms of our academic life, I have en- 
deavored to speak today — In the spirit of 1836 ! 



PD 10.4 



\'^ 



^ 



% -^^ 

v-^^ 






c^ 



..>! 






a\ 



G^ 






.^^ 






> 






o 






.^^ ^- "< 






o^ .,. ^o 



^ 



^0' 



4 o 



t^.0^ 



c 



0' 



.v^ 



-V 






^0•• 



.^^ 



^<S^ 



'^^0^ 



^0' 





















:....' ^km. 



<_-» 



o 



4 c> 


















^"-^^^ 



/.•:«;;-"°- /•^•^'"- o°^.-;^•."°^ <^' 
















*> 









4 c> 




